NOTES AND COMMENTS 103 



Roth* makes the statement: "The height of white pine in mixture 

 with hemlock and hardwoods is entirely independent, each kind going 

 its own gait and reaching its own normal limits, and so clearly ex- 

 pressing that a particular acre in Site I for pine and Site III or IV for 

 maple or beech." 



The last two statements taken by themselves may cloud the funda- 

 mental conception of site classification. The true site class is not 

 indicated by the height or the yield of stands of a species which 

 cannot fully utilize the physical factors of site. Under such condi- 

 tions, a third quality stand might be developed on what is actually 

 a first quality site. The conformity of stand quality to site quahty is 

 a measure of good forestry practice. As yet we have in this country 

 almost no proper index stands under management as correct bases 

 for determining site classes. 



Samuel, N. Spring. 



Ithaca, January, 1917. 



Professor Recknagel called attention in the last issue of the Pro- 

 ceedings-'^ to the apparent lack of the poorer sites in this country. I 

 shall endeavor to give my interpretation of the site question as I find 

 it in the Douglas fir region of western Washington and Oregon. 



My yield tables for Douglas fir are based upon three sites for the 

 reason that this species does not occur in sufficient quantities to form 

 a type upon a poorer site than what I have called Quality III. This 

 species occurs only rarely above about 3,000 to 3,500 feet elevation on 

 the west slope of the Cascade Mountains or in the Olympics, and it is 

 about at this altitudinal limit that my Site III is situated. At about this 

 elevation and ranging upward to some 4,500 to 6,000 feet, depending 

 on the latitude, are to be found Sites IV and V, which I presume 

 would be comparable to Sites IV and V in the European countries. 

 The species found here are quite different, however, from those in 

 Sites I, II, and III, with the exception of western hemlock and amabilis 

 fir; the former occurring in practically all of these sites and the 

 latter in all except Site I. Therefore, if in place of Douglas fir, western 

 hemlock had been the subject of a yield study, we should have tables 

 for yield ranging over the five sites. This, I believe, explains the 

 lack of the poorer sites in the yield tables for Douglas fir. 



I wish also to state that in my estimation we have the equivalents of 



■•Roth, F., "Concerning Site," F. Q., XIV, 1, p. 3. 

 sPro. Soc. Amer. Foresters, Vol. XI, No. 4, pp. 441-443. 



